Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

But often the "mess" has bankrupted companies who were completely blameless.
I refer, of course, to the tragedy over silicone breast implants. Not only
was DowCorning significantly harmed, but millions and millions of (real) men
were deprived of a signal joy in life.

Also many of the Superfund sites are related to dumping that was
perfectly legal at the time. The legal system also got a fair amount of
money from them.
In fact, this litigation before the SF money is used is one of the
main reasons it takes so long to start clean-up. The feds have to try
and find the responsible parties and have to try and get their money
from the RPs before they can spend SF money.

When was the last super fund site created (not designated)? That is old
news and has little to do with current practices. Rather like the anti
ANWR drilling loon insist drilling would destroy ANWR while the reality
is that a few small sites along the perimeter using current directional
drilling technology could tap ANWR with essentially no impact. Same with
the anti logging loons where the old clear cut mess went away long ago
and we now have selective helicopter logging with no logging roads at
all.

Actually, yes it would! But that is because it does not
do what he thinks it does. Probably most new production
wells on the North Slope today (if not all), use
directional drilling. The method is to drill a vertical
hole from immediately above a reservoir straight down
into the center of the reservoir. Typically multiple
wells heads can be spaced at 10 feet apart on the
surface. Each well might typically be a 7000 foot deep
hole on the North Slope. From that depth drilling goes
at an angle, from 70 to 110 degrees to the vertical
hole, off to the side. Current technology allows
literally steering the drill, and it can go up, down, or
in a cork screw! What it can do of significance is find
and tap relatively small pockets of oil that would never
drain into a single centrally located well hole. It
greatly increases production from most reservoirs and
from individual wells.
I'm not sure what the actual distance that can be
covered horizontally, but the last time I looked it up
was a couple years ago and it was less than 2 miles.

You are *grossly* misinformed about what "directional
drilling technology" is and what it can do. The coastal
plain of ANWR is 15 to 45 miles deep, and extends
east/west for approximately 100 miles. Directional
drilling could not even begin to cover even the
narrowest part (where at least 7.5 miles would be
required), never mind the widest areas.
The Alpine field, near the village of Nuiqsut and the
western most producing field in the Prudhoe Bay complex
today, was discovered in 1996 and uses directional
drilling exclusively. It came on line in 2000.
ConocoPhillips, the operator, then constructed a
satellite well site, Fiord, five miles north of the
Alpine pad. Later a second satellite field, Nanuq, was
constructed 4 miles south of the Alpine field. Rather
clearly the maximum reach for horizontal drilling does
not exceed 2 miles.
Note that even if there was directional drilling capable
of doing what you claim, it would *still* have a
dramatic and negative impact on the Porcupine Caribou
herd. That is because the topology required for your
suggested method would necessarily circle the 1002 area
with roads and pipelines. Which of course is not
significantly different than building a lattice of roads
and pipelines as is actually necessary for production.

Directional drilling technology is where it is now because it meets the
current need. Do you honestly think that the necessary upgrades to the
technology would not be made in short order if clearance to drill from
selected sites around ANWR were given? Lots of things weren't possible
until there was motivation and funding to actually get them done.

"a few small sites along the perimeter using current
directional drilling technology could tap ANWR with
essentially no impact."
That is what you said to start with. It is purely a
fabrication from your imagination. Now you are changing
what you say, admitting that this statement was false.
But what you are saying *now* is false too.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that is technically
feasible. There are *no* wells being drilled those
kinds of distances, nor anywhere even close, using *any*
kind of technology, much less being drilled
horizontally!

If what you say were true... There would currently be
oil production from ANWR. The entire eastern edge has
been offered for lease, and in fact there are many dry
holes within 5 miles of ANWR.
And recently the State of Alaska offered 26 offshore
tracts along the northern shore of ANWR for lease. Even
though that particular lease sale resulted in the
largest sale ever in the Beaufort Sea east of Prudhoe
Bay, not one single bid was even placed for any of the
tracts on the edge of ANWR.
Please cease posting fabricated facts that you imagine
would support your cause. Nobody needs to hear it...

They can most certainly manage the ANWR drilling given the goal and the
funding. The underlying technology certainly exists. There have already
been non oil well scientific drilling projects reaching the depths
necessary.

It certainly is true. The investment necessary to to do it just hasn't
been made yet.

Everyone is holding off, expecting to either eventually be allowed to
drill in ANWR using cheaper conventional methods, or for oil prices to
get high enough to justify the investment necessary to drill from the
perimeter.

Nothing fabricated about it, it most certainly is possible. No new
technology needs to be developed, it's just a matter of the cost to put
together the existing technologies necessary for the job. The effort and
expense expended to reach the oil is directly tied to the market value
of the oil, and that value will only increase.

But it wasn't anything like the distances which ANWR
would require.
The thing with large reservoirs like those in
Kuwait/Iraq is that from a location right on the border,
a well that angles a mile or so horizontally could then
drain an area several square miles in size.
The geology in ANWR is distinctly different, with oil
caught in many very small pockets even within a given
reservoir. Directional drilling allows a well to break
into those pockets and extract oil that would not
otherwise drain into any central point being pumped by a
vertical well.
Basically Pete hasn't go a clue what the technology
does, and is making up a fantasy to suit his needs.

Wrong. If that were true, as pointed out they would
*currently* be drilling horizontally into ANWR. They
aren't. The reason is because what you are suggesting
is simply ridiculous blather from your over active
imagination.

If that were true, they'd be doing it. Nobody is!
Basic fact: it ain't true.
1) The "underlying technology" does not exist.
2) There are hundreds of wells on the North Slope
"reaching the depths necessary", which has no
significance at all.
3) There are no wells *anywhere* that reach the
necessary *length* (7 to 25 miles).

Oh, now you just say all it needs is the money...
Given that some people have been going bonkers about
drilling in ANWR for over 25 years, if it was true...
why isn't the money available?
There is only one reason: what you say is false.

Ha ha. Now you're getting silly. They were supposedly
chomping at the bit to get at it when oil was selling
for less that $15 a barrel, and now with peaks hitting 6
times higher, and every oil company has had record
profits for months, and you claim somebody is waiting
for favorable financial conditions???
You are a joke.

You can't support a word of it with references or cites
to credible sources. Logically what you have said is
simply silly.

The technology is not there. It isn't even close, and
nobody is headed in that direction.

If that were true, those lease sales just offshore of ANWR
would have gone for big dollars. Nobody even bid on one of
them.
If that were true, the leases on the eastern side of ANWR
would be merrily drilling away as we speak. They aren't.

Right now the cost for production of a barrel of oil on
the North Slope is less that 20% of the market value for
that barrel of oil. If what you are saying were true,
every producer on the Slope would be trying to extract
oil from ANWR *now*.
In fact, no oil company has shown any interest at all in
ANWR for years. Nothing close to ANWR has attracted any
attention either. Moreover the State of Alaska is
actually taking back some leases close to ANWR because
of no activity!
Pete, you just simply need to stop making up what you'd
like things to be, do a little research or don't post at
all.

When ANWR was big in the news a few years ago, various experts were
interviewed for their projections as to what percentage of our oil could be
provided by wildly successful drilling in the region. If I recall, even the
oil companies were tossing around numbers like 4%. Maybe this is why there's
not much interest in the region.
I'm a big proponent of adding together small advantages to get a bigger one,
but at some point, one must say "Get serious, or fuhgettaboutit".

BS, pure BS. The cost to drill from the perimeter would be vastly higher
and the value of the oil is still too low to profit from it yet.

Absolutely it does, whether your blinder let you see it or not.

I specified non oil well projects, which have been drilling vastly
deeper than normal oil wells, depth comparable to the distances that
would be needed.

No wells, but there are indeed drilled holes in that depth range.

Simply the price of oil. You go bonkers and try to get approval to drill
the cheap way while the value of the oil isn't enough to justify the
cost of the unconventional drilling. As the oil prices go up you get
closer to the point where the more expensive route can be profitable.

Yep, chomping for what they can get from tried and true conventional
drilling. Oil prices need to be higher to generate interest in accessing
the oil through more difficult methods.

You are the joke with your tunnel vision.

Nothing at all silly about having the sense to look at what could be
done vs. keep the blinders on looking only at what is currently being
done.

What mystery technology do you believe would need to exist? Holes of
comparable depths have already been drilled for research.

They go for the low hanging fruit first. when that is exhausted they'll
look at the harder to reach spots.

That's the most moronic thing you've said so far. Why would they clamor
to try something new and untested, when the process could end up costing
120% of the value of what they extract? When prices go up enough it will
start to look attractive.

Again, everything you claim is just a matter of the economics, not
technological feasibility.

The price of oil is so high that every oil company is
rolling in profits. You are clueless.
There simply is *no* technology that allows it, and
nobody is working on developing it either. "Same basic
technology" means you haven't got a clue what the
technology even is!

So why don't you just provide an example. I've shown
you exactly where the current directional drilling
technology is in fact used, and the limits of what it
can do. Try demonstrating in any way you want that the
Alpine Field is not pushing the limits!

Deeper is *not* the problem. The problem is drilling
for 7 to 25 *miles* horizontally. Currently nobody even
drills that far in a vertical well, never mind
horizontally.
(And no you did not specify "non oil well projects", but that
would hardly make a bit of difference anyway, as non-oil well
drilling is absolutely irrelevant.)

No there aren't. Please, cut the BS.

Giggle snort.

Then why is it you can't cite *anything* that supports
your claims. No examples. Nothing at all that
references any of the "facts" you claim.

The first statement is certainly patently false as a blanket generality,
others note many that have paid large damages, even to the point of
driving them into bankruptcy.
I'll only add that many (and I'd venture "most" but it would take too
much time to confirm the statistics) of the Superfund sites are from
locations that go back in some cases as much as 100 years earlier to
initial site usage for industrial use when both attitudes and knowledge
were grossly different than today. At the time, those were standard and
common practices and virtually all were within compliance of applicable
law and regulations _OF_THE_TIME. That is significant.
That there should be efforts to mitigate former sites is good, but to
caste current individuals as scapegoats for stuff done before they were
even born is not productive.
That said, yes, there are some who aren't doing all they might, but that
too is a fairly widespread trait in human history. Overall, if one
compares progress in the US to the developing nations and places such as
E Europe or the former Soviet Union, we look pretty darn good.

I was once offered an investment opportunity: a sand pit.
Forget about selling the sand, the deal was a tax dodge.
As the sand was removed, you were depleting an asset and got to take a
deduction. At some point, the sand pit would be empty. You're left with a
honkin' big hole in the ground.
Now you charge people to dump stuff (trees, concrete, etc.). The hole now is
your asset, and as it fills, you get another asset-reduction write-off.
When the hole gets full, you cover the mess with topsoil and build low-cost
housing.
Anyway, with regard to SuperFund sites, why couldn't they just cover 'em up
and build housing for the poor? Lest you think that's weird, Italy covers
contaminated sites with rubber sheeting, then soil, and turns the results
into parks.

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.